1918 Enfield Small Arms Factory made SMLE No.1 Mk.III* converted back to No.1 Mk.III

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roy

Well spotted Owengun, yes that is a military broad arrow on a BSA commercial barrel, something I have not seen before. RSAF Enfield were making spare woodwork with provision for the mag cutoff so that it would fit any model of SMLE, Even in 1940 BSA were using cutoffs, the elimination of the cutoff was a WW1 concession and was to be resumed once the war was over. 1940 BSA No1 MK III - Pre-dispersal? is a rifle to compare yours to. I do note the commercial BSA mark. With enfields you are always learning.

---

So maybe it was not a sporter rebuilt and put together by someone from parts in his garage and it could possibly be a BSA factory refitted rifle done post war for some reason unknown now? The serial number font on the barrel is exactly the same as the font stamped on the bolt and nose cap!

Also post war bayonets when rebuilt were given a blued all over finish, including the blade, they found it was not good to let the enemy know you were about to go over the top by flashing your shiny blades at them first. When I was in the army all of our bayonets had dark finished blades except the parade ones.

Is the font the same though?

No, the 4 on the barrel and the nose cap are vastly different.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Homer

Is the font the same though?

---

The font on the bolt handle, nose cap and barrel look the same to me, all have a H prefix like this (H) and the 4 & 5 in the serial like this (4 & 5 ) the recevier and front site have a H font like this - H and a 4 & 5 more like this - 4 & 5

The barrel and bolt are the same but the nosecap is different.

This 4

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...b17e9466-1.jpg

and this 4

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...1241968e-1.jpg

and this 4 look the same to me

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...032b650f-1.jpg

But heh, I only have the rifle in front of me so maybe I am wrong, and possibly the guy who put it together from a sporter and parts would have used maybe 2 different stamp sets to make it look that way for some stranger than fiction reason and to give everybody something off topic to talk about.

Lets all just for sh*ts and giggles suppose for a minute it was BSA who fitted the new bolt, nose cap and barrel at the same time they refitted it post war rather than the rebuilt in a garage from parts scenario, it does after all make sense seeing as the barrel's bore is also like new.

I didn't say it was put together although I did contemplate whether that maybe the case. Even if the nosecap was different style/font, it wouldn't necessarily mean it was put together anyway. I only questioned whether the nosecap style of numbering was the same as the other replaced parts. From those photos it does look a little different to me.
But you are right, you are sitting right in front of the rifle. Just remember that when you post, you open yourself up to comments and discussion about your rifle. That's the point isn't it, and there are some very experienced Enfield enthusiast here, as well as a few commonwealth armorers.

I decided to do some searching myself online about BSA refurb SMLE rifles and found a lot of info from many website/forum sources who state that BSA was during full FTR of SMLE's until at least 1954 and found this below info on other website forums, BTW my barrel has a 53 stamped on the left side that most probably means it was replaced by BSA in 1953 -

"The UK depot and armourers' system carried on repairing No1s into the 1960s. The rifle was actually obsolete in military service since 1945, and the "official" repairs only applied to No1s held by cadet forces and some units where the rifles were expendable - e.g. Sandhurst used SMLEs for swin test training as late as the 1980s.

The last actual government "FTR" or factory build for no1 rifles was the final, 1945, run of BSA "Dispersal" rifles. These last UK-produced No1s appear to use scrubbed receivers and other "use up" parts. Not much is known about this production, but at this time UK was handing over No1s to Australia, India, other commonwealth users - and as military aid to recently liberated countries (Austria, Greece, Italy, France, etc).

Your rifle was part of an "FTR" programme carried out by BSA in 1953/4. It is thought that this was a purely commercial FTR programme, with the rifles possibly being bought and distributed by the Foreign/Colonial office - ie not part of UK military funding."

And

"It appears as though BSA embarked on a large FTR program of No1's in 1953, there is conjecture as to why, popular thought is they where destined for far flung parts of the Commonwealth, but for reasons unknown it never happened. They where never used in the UK in a military role of any sort, not even for cadets apparently."

And

"Despite the Dunkirk myths, Britain was actually awash with rifles in 1940. About 2.7 million No1s survived WW1, out of the c.4 million produced. In the 1920s, a big refurbishment and inspection programme was carried out, leaving about 2.1 million new or mint condition rifles in store, with the remainder broken up for spare parts. An additional 250,000 P14s were also in store, although thousands of these were sent off to other countries as military aid (eg the Baltic states). Apart from the rifles used in France, North Africa, and the Far East, the majority of British No1 stocks would still have been in mint condition when they were handed over to India and Australia.

Sparkbrooke disappeared even before WW1. All WW2 British production and repair of No1s came from BSA - of No1 MkIIIs until 1940, and then "Dispersal" No1 MkIII*s thereafter. BSA also carried out a very large FTR programme in 1953. Its thought that this was a Foreign & Colonial Office contract in order to send new condition rifles out to various colonies."

And

"I'm not saying BSA necessarily re-installed missing cut-offs during the 53 FTR (although I actually think that might be a distinct possibility, given BSA's inclination to quality and "completeness"), but pointing out that cut-offs were re-installed en masse during official Britishicon military refurbishments of the 1920s, and that the cut-off remained part of the rifle spec until at least 1941 (e.g. BSA's production of the last full-spec British military No1s). Most of the No1 MkIIIs that BSA procured would have had cut-offs (indeed, most of them would have been "star barred out" rifles), and these would mostly have been FTR'd and sent out with the cut-offs in situ.

I think post-war EMER's do not contain any reference to the cut-off, as by then the whole No1 rifle was officially obsolescent, and its maintenance programme was simply adjusted down to a basic make-do/patch-up level as stocks ran out. If, by contrast, the in-service rifle (the No4) had had a cut-off, then the EMERs would have had specific instructions about the cut-off, its retention or removal, and any related stocking-up issues."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Homer

I didn't say it was put together although I did contemplate whether that maybe the case. Even if the nosecap was different style/font, it wouldn't necessarily mean it was put together anyway. I only questioned whether the nosecap style of numbering was the same as the other replaced parts. From those photos it does look a little different to me.
But you are right, you are sitting right in front of the rifle. Just remember that when you post, you open yourself up to comments and discussion about your rifle. That's the point isn't it, and there are some very experienced Enfield enthusiast here, as well as a few commonwealth armorers.

---

No problem, others did and my comment was more directed at that, It was getting a bit frustrating but I kind of found it funny how all these opinions came out of left field, I do have a good sense of humour.

Also in everyone's defence sometimes if the photos are taken at different angles it makes it hard for the people who look at them to see what I see the same.

BTW, I served in the Army for 12 years and worked in both the Ordnance Corps and RAEME and handled, observed and worked on many hundreds of small arms including Lee Enfields so I am not a Johnny come lately either.

As Homer said 'You are sitting with the rifle in front of you' What you can see can be different from what comes through a photo, I never knew of the major BSA commercial rebuild programme and would like to see another BSA rebuilt rifle displaying the same finish to compare it to. There are still odd things about the rifle to my eyes, which are those of a collector, mainly familiar with SMLE's in New Zealand which mainly are late ww1 and never went back to England